TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und of appeal:- "The Ld. CIT|(A) failed to appreciate the amount of enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,20,87,825/- which was not taxed/declared by the assessee AY 2008-09, thereby the cost of acquisition was taken at nil against the sale consideration of Rs. 3,21,75,000/- against the transaction for sale of said plot which is to be taxed under section 45(1) after allowing the expenses incurred by the assessee at the time of acquiring of the plot." 3. The assessee has raised the following Cross Objection:- "1. The appeal is not maintainable, inter alia, because: (1) The appeal is not in the Form No. 36 prescribed by Rule 47(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. (2) As per Column No. 9 of the Form No. 36, the order appealed against was communicated on 10-12-2019 and, therefore, the last date to file appeal was 08-02-2020; but the appeal has been filed on 25-02-2020 and thus, the appeal is late by 17 days. 2. The initiation of the proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) by the Id. Income Tax Officer, ward 44(4), New Delhi [hereafter the ITO, ward 44(4)], being without satisfying and complying with the pre-re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the family of one Shri Jeet Singh to M/s Concorde Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. a company controlled by BPTP Group for a sale consideration of Rs. 7.40 crores and the purchaser company had issued 10 cheques to ten family members. The said company had also issued 2 cheques of Rs. 1,00,75,000/- each to Shri Sukhbir Singh and Smt. Sumitra Devi, both dated 14.09.2009. Since ITR for AY 2010-11 was not filed by the assessee, Smt. Sumitra Devi, notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the "Act") was issued by ITO, ward 44(4), New Delhi on 31.03.2017. In response, the assessee e-filed her ITR for AY 2010-11 declaring income of Rs. 1,17,650/-. As per new address given by the assessee, the territorial jurisdiction vested with Ld. ITO, Ward -35(7), New Delhi ("AO") who continued the assessment proceedings. Statutory notice(s) were issued/served upon the assessee. Requisite details furnished were examined on test check basis. During assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to furnish explanation about the receipt of above said cheque dated 14.09.2009 and the assessee filed reply dated 14.11.2017 reproduced in para 4 of Ld. AO's order who summarised the reply of the assessee in para ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lusion of name of his spouse in the conveyance deed, if married. Hence, it is clear that it was a case of enhanced compensation and not compensation. In fact by virtue of this allotment letter, the appellant became co-owner of the allotted Plot. The current market rate as approved by DDA was Rs. 1,16,683/- per square meter at the time it was allotted. 4.6 Thereafter, the appellant has admitted that she along with her husband sold the allotted plot to Sh. Sanjay Dhawan on 29.10.2009 for a consideration of Rs. 6,43,50,000/-(the appellant's share being 50%), at the prevailing market rate on which stamp duty was paid. Hence, the holding period of the plot from the date of allotment 12.06.2007 till date of sale 29.10.2009 was approximately 28 months. Thus, the appellant received Rs. 3,21,75,000/- during the relevant assessment year i.e. AY 2010-11. The AO invoked the provisions of section 45(5)(b) and accordingly treated the entire amount as capital gains after treating the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement as NIL (Explanation (i) to section 45(5)(b)). The appellant has also raised an argument that even if the AO's contention was to be accepted, the capital ga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f cheque in bank is not income; there was no tangible material for 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment; notice under section 148 was not issued within the limitation period and that satisfaction recorded by the Ld. PCIT under section 151 of the Act is bad in law. In support of each of the above, many precedents are relied upon. 9.1 The Ld. CIT(A) dealt with the above issue in para 4.2 of the appellate order and dismissed the assessee's appeal on the point by recording the following findings: "4.2 Ground of appeal No. 1 refers to the non compliance of provisions of section 147/ 148 making the proceedings bad in law, it is noted that the AO was in receipt of information from the Investigation Wing. The AO made further necessary inquiries viz from the Citi Bank, Punjab National Bank and also carried out local enquiries though the ITI and then ascertained that the Appellant, alongwith her husband received payments for sale of property to one Sh. Sanjay Dhawan. One such payment was received by Ch no 427071 dated 14.09.2009 drawn at Citi Bank, issued by Concorde Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. which formed the basis of 148 notice and thereafter the AO followed due pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 92 taxmann.com 74 observed as under:- "5. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, it could be straightaway seen that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded, proceeded on the erroneous footing that the assessee had not filed return at all. The first premise for issuing the notice was thus factually incorrect. It is now not disputed by the Revenue that the assessee did file return of income for the year under consideration which was duly acknowledged by the Department. The entire reasoning thus proceeded on the wrong premise that the assessee had never filed the return. This itself would be suffice to annul the notice of re-opening the assessment". 9.3 The decision (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the assessee's case before us. The Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal relied upon the decision (supra) of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in its order in Braham Prakash Lakra vs. ITO in ITA No. 7650/Del/2018 decided on 19.11.2019. Reference may also be made to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Indo Arab Air Services (2016) 283 CTR 92 (Del) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that while law does not require....